Speaking of sex and college students…
…I would be utterly remiss if I didn’t also at least link to this fascinating article concerning a newly-published study that examines certain effects that “the Pill” is having on the ability of women (and also men, indirectly) to select effective, “genetically compatible” partners.
In the Daily Mail in the United Kingdom, an October 8 article summarizes findings in a research paper published in the journal “Trends in Ecology and Evolution.” Researchers Alexandra Alvergne and Virpi Lumma entitled their study, “Does the contraceptive pill alter mate choice in humans?”
…
It all has to do with pheromones — the chemical signals, or scent molecules, that communicate to males a female’s most fertile time for reproducing. While there has been debate in the past about whether this means of communication exists in humans, and not just animals, many scientists who have been pursuing the elusive pheromones are certain of their existence in humans at this time. For instance, in 1995, Swiss researcher Claus Wedekind discovered that women who are not chemically contracepting preferred the odor of males whose MHC complex (Major Histocompatibility complex) — immune system markers indicated via smell — were dissimilar to theirs.
In other words, these non-contracepting women were attracted to the scent of men genetically compatible with them. To increase the possibility of fertility with a mate, we need dissimilar immune systems. This is why we do not marry our first cousins. Such an immune system similarity could lead to offspring that are not as healthy.
The use of chemical contraceptives blocks this natural phenomenon by inducing a state of “faux pregnancy,” a suppression of the normal cycling of hormones associated with ovulation. This change in a woman’s body results in changes in her attraction to a potential mate. She is now attracted to a mate whose MHC complex is quite similar to hers, more like that of her father or her brother. It seems to eliminate the adaptive attraction to a male with whom there is an increased possibility of fertility. Furthermore, chemical contraceptives eliminate the normal pheromone shift that alerts males to the woman’s time of fertility. Men find the scent of ovulating women to be attractive and arousing. A consistently infertile woman elicits no such response.
Also interesting:
Corroborating research to the Lumma-Alvergne study is found in a surprising source. In 2004, Alexander Sanger — grandson of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger — published a book called “Beyond Choice: Reproductive Freedom in the 21st Century.” At the time, he was the Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations Population Fund and chair of the International Planned Parenthood Council.
In the book, Sanger reports on earlier research on the phenomenon of male-female attraction and immune system compatibility. He writes, “There is a significant body of research showing that MHC incompatibility between a couple increases the likelihood of an unsuccessful pregnancy,” and that “hormonal contraception may unconsciously alter the sexual selection process. It may alter male and female mating preference, which may lead to more unsuccessful pregnancies or less healthy children.”
He further observes that “none of the numerous side effects listed in the patient literature that comes with the birth control pills hints that hormonal contraception may lead to changes in the sexual selection process and reproductive failure.”
In conclusion: “We cannot ignore the negative effects of hormonal contraception that disrupt natural biological and evolutionary processes, and we must balance them against the evolutionary benefits that accrue to women from being able to control pregnancy” (pgs. 198-200).
Interestingly, Sanger admitted that “pro-choice” arguments for contraception and abortion fail to provide “sufficient moral underpinnings to support the exercise of individual choices that may result in harmful societal and biological consequences for humanity, including increases in sexually transmitted diseases, in infertility, and in anti-female gender discrimination.”
Not surprisingly, the Church basically argued these same points about forty years ago. Also not surprisingly, the basic viewpoint of the Church — that artificial contraception is both damaging to couples in the long-term, and damaging to humanity as a whole — has been more or less vindicated by modern research.
Not that that’s ever happened before. Heh…yeah, and I’m Lutheran.
I started blogging back in 2004 -- in May, if the Wayback Machine is to be believed. Not that I remember the exact day. To be honest, I didn't take it that seriously then; it was a fun distraction, but nothing more.
That all changed, I think, once the Danish cartoons were published, and the assault on the right to freedom of expression became very visible. With the recent issues in Canada concerning the "human rights" commissions, the gravity of the matter has only increased, and my interest in blogging has increased right along with it.
I used to blog at a domain called Time Immortal, but it seemed to be the right time for a change -- there's been a lot of that in my life of late. Hence this blog: a fresh start, and proof positive that I won't shut up even if I get shut down once in a while.
